The W
Views: 101448474
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.12.14 1549
The W - Current Events & Politics - Election 2004 results thread (Page 7)
This thread has 63 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.89
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
(949 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (176 total)
Nag
Landjager








Since: 10.1.03
From: Enter your city here

Since last post: 2234 days
Last activity: 289 days
Y!:
#121 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
About this Barack Obama guy, I'm ignorant, is this guy islamic? Sounds like it. If so, why not just suggest the dems run a tray of ice cubes in 2008.
It's False
Scrapple








Since: 20.6.02
From: I am the Tag Team Champions!

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 1 day
#122 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.77
    Originally posted by Nag
    About this Barack Obama guy, I'm ignorant, is this guy islamic? Sounds like it. If so, why not just suggest the dems run a tray of ice cubes in 2008.


Wow...if EVER there were a line for Karl Rove and any other Republican to use in any future smear campaigns, that would be it. Goes well with John Kerry "looking French".

To answer the question, Obama is an African-American with a Kenyan heritage. No sign of Islam here.

(edited by It's False on 3.11.04 2258)



When the hell did SNITSKYMANIA start to run wild???
Crimedog
Boerewors








Since: 28.3.02
From: Ohio

Since last post: 2767 days
Last activity: 2757 days
#123 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
    Originally posted by wordlife
    I hope you and StaggerLee and the rest of the majority will be the first to sign up for WWIII before they start a draft (I sure as hell shouldn't be over there, since I am a "wussy in the minority").



Wow. How's that Kool-Aid taste, buddy? You see, you completely blow the legitimacy of your argument when you start out by going back to the old "BUSH IS GOING TO REINSTATE THE DRAFT BECAUSE HE HAS DADDY ISSUES!" crap that is completely baseless. There's plenty of real ammunition to use against him. Try it.

Let me say this simply: There will be no draft as long as George Bush is in office. It is not a possibility. If it were even suggested, the current military might just revolt and take over the damn country themselves, because they sure as hell don't want it.

As for Bush's daddy's right to live, Iraq did try to assassinate Bush 41. And, you know, that happens to be considered an act of war. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

    Originally posted by wordlife
    It's sad that we let a bunch of rednecks/morons vote on someone's civil liberties. It would be like letting me vote on the right for some of these people having the right to have children out of wedlock who they cannot support (which I am vehemently opposed to). I mean the Bible does say that basically "if you don't work, then you don't eat".



So...because "rednecks/morons" aren't qualified to vote on someone's civil liberties, we should take away one of theirs? I think you're unqualified to vote on who the Commander in Chief is, because you said you wouldn't be willing to serve in the military. Therefore, you no longer get to vote in Presidential elections. Sound fair?
DrOp
Frankfurter








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2292 days
Last activity: 1159 days
#124 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.58
Guru and Mess make such salient targeted points that I may have to borrow them (with all due credit) when speaking to others from time to time. Particulary, these things ring true to me:

    Originally posted by Guru
    If you only choose the thing you believe in, you end up with a theocracy once a critical mass of people start voting like that. America was not meant to be a theocracy. If it was, then it would already be so. America was founded with the belief that all men had the inherent right life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -not just Christians.

    It upsets me that people today can't see the great foundation of tolerance that was laid in the Constitution, but choose to only see certain words "See, they said God!".



I read somewhere that Bush got 70% of the votes of Caucasians who say they attend church regularly. I'll try to hunt down the link. Historically, the Bible has been used to sanction a TON of really immoral things--this is what scares me about the religious right that tend to back Bush. I feel I am a faithful person, and I still refuse to force my faith-based beliefs upon others in the form of laws, amendments and litigation. Or as Mess said, I refuse to silence those I don't agree with.

    Originally posted by Messenior
    God doesn't force people to become Christians, or to believe in him. He wants people to choose him of their own free will. And so therefore Christians shouldn't force people to live how we believe. We should instead vote for choice, and live our lives in such a way people want to live like us.

    Bush and the conservative Christian Right have scared people so much they feel they must protect their families against all kinds of menaces, shutting the doors on people different, instead of turning their families into beautiful examples of Christian living different people want to follow. That kind of leading and that kind of fear is going to continue to tear apart this country, and I fear the ramifications.


Awesome point, my friend. I'm glad I'm not the only one who felt the force-fed fear undertones throughout this campaign.



ITVR: In-Jokes like 90's De La Soul--come be entertained AND confused.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1326 days
Last activity: 1123 days
#125 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Incidentally, Clinton probably got more Republicans out to vote than Democrats. Yes the hate lives...



The Thrill
Banger








Since: 16.4.02
From: Green Bay, WI

Since last post: 246 days
Last activity: 93 days
#126 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.25
Catch The Thrill on "Pick of the Week": taped Tuesdays at Planet Magic in Denmark, WI; on the air Sundays @ 1 am on WB-14!

    Originally posted by AWArulz
    I've spend some time tonight looking at the county by county wins on the CNN site. It's amazing how concentrated kerry support is. In California, where the Senator won by nearly a million votes, he only won like 15 counties. 600,000 of that difference can be found in LA county alone. The maps are actually misleading, showing this large spread of red across the center of the country, while in reality, the spread is seemingly even wider, with the blue concentrated around the urban centers.


Same way in Wisconsin. Kerry got the votes from Milwaukee and Madison, some support in the northwest part of the state near Lake Superior (what the hell?), and the western part of WI, where he did a lot of campaigning (TV markets in La Crosse, for instance, also hit parts of Minnesota and Iowa.)


Image courtesy this story from WBAY-TV...my employer

I guess the rural Democrat is a thing of the past now?

EDIT:

    Originally posted by wordlife
    If you read some of the British papers, they have stated that we found Osama but he is sooo well protected it would be suicide for us.


Would that be this "respected" British newspaper?



Or The Guardian's little scheme to tell Ohio voters to support Kerry (yeah, that worked well)?



The last time the British told us how to run our government, we had a revolution. F those "journalists."

(edited by The Thrill on 4.11.04 1037)


Star wipe, and...we're out.
Thrillin' ain't easy.



THE THRILL
ACW-NWA Wisconsin
Home Video Technical Director...&
A2NWO 4 Life!
(Click the big G or here to hear the Packers Fight Song in RealAudio...or try .AU, .WAV or .MIDI!)
wordlife
Head cheese








Since: 4.4.03

Since last post: 3419 days
Last activity: 2703 days
#127 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
    Originally posted by Crimedog
      Originally posted by wordlife
      I hope you and StaggerLee and the rest of the majority will be the first to sign up for WWIII before they start a draft (I sure as hell shouldn't be over there, since I am a "wussy in the minority").



    Wow. How's that Kool-Aid taste, buddy? You see, you completely blow the legitimacy of your argument when you start out by going back to the old "BUSH IS GOING TO REINSTATE THE DRAFT BECAUSE HE HAS DADDY ISSUES!" crap that is completely baseless. There's plenty of real ammunition to use against him. Try it.

    Let me say this simply: There will be no draft as long as George Bush is in office. It is not a possibility. If it were even suggested, the current military might just revolt and take over the damn country themselves, because they sure as hell don't want it.

    As for Bush's daddy's right to live, Iraq did try to assassinate Bush 41. And, you know, that happens to be considered an act of war. Just thought I'd throw that out there.



    Well, I could make a laundry list of what I don't like about W but that has been done ad nauseum already.

    I think you misunderstood what I was saying. His "daddy issues" relate to what you said later. If you read the BBC (b/c I hate to say it, most American news is drivel), W came out and stated at the end of one of his speeches that Hussein was evil and that he tried to kill his father. Sooo you are saying that it is okay to pillage a country for something that was done almost 15 years ago? Cmon! My feeling is that if older Bush wanted to do something about it, he should have before he left but he pulled out of Iraq and left Hussein in power. They shouldn't make up some excuse to go in and kick ass now.

      Originally posted by wordlife
      It's sad that we let a bunch of rednecks/morons vote on someone's civil liberties. It would be like letting me vote on the right for some of these people having the right to have children out of wedlock who they cannot support (which I am vehemently opposed to). I mean the Bible does say that basically "if you don't work, then you don't eat".



    So...because "rednecks/morons" aren't qualified to vote on someone's civil liberties, we should take away one of theirs? I think you're unqualified to vote on who the Commander in Chief is, because you said you wouldn't be willing to serve in the military. Therefore, you no longer get to vote in Presidential elections. Sound fair?


First things first, what does deciding people's civil liberties have to do with me going to war for our President? In my opinion, they are 2 completely different things. Explain what you mean by that comment and I will respond.

My question is what are we truly fighting for in Iraq? Answer that question for me Crimedog.

Honestly, if I got called due to our country being under attack (which is a joke b/c the terror groups are everywhere and destroying the Middle East isn't going to stop them), I guess that is life in the big city. However, I really don't want to risk life and limb so some rich assholes can make a billion dollars (Halliburton, Exxon/Mobil, which both were HUGE contributors to the W elections) and we can get Hussein back for attacking W's dad. These are the reasons we are in Iraq. This is a stupid, pointless war that is escalating to another Vietnam.Furthermore, W has come out and said that he wants Iran next. No offense, but he hasn't finished the job in Afghanistan or Iraq first. Anyone who thinks this is near over has no idea what we are in for.

I guess I would be more accepting of this crap if he actually FINISHED ONE MESS BEFORE MAKING ANOTHER. If you read some of the British papers, they have stated that we found Osama but he is sooo well protected it would be suicide for us. Maybe if we weren't so busy trying to get Hussein back, we could have caught Osama before he build a fortress up in the mountains?

Remember that Vietnam started out small, we weren't sending hundreds of thousands of boys over there immediately....

Stagger, my response to your earlier post regarding this issue is that yeah that's great that you and your g/f don't wanna get married. I am happy for you but you still have the option, true or false? My brother and his partner may not end up with the option due to W. I mean if they want that piece of paper, why shouldn't they be entitled to it (and all of the benefits that go with it)?

AWA and Stagger I had an uncle who served in Nam and he told me to never, EVER sign up for the military (including the Reserves). He had to so he could pay his way through school and provide for his family. I thank him for that b/c by watching him I worked my ass off, put myself through school w/no loans, and I did damn well. I graduated magna cum laude from UMass (missing Summa by a few points) with degrees in Accounting and Economics so I would consider myself pretty educated :). I was also in the top 10% of my class.

I respect anyone who decided to go into the military, but I don't feel my military should be used to fight a personal vendetta against Hussein. We should have cleared house in Afghanistan, caught bin Laden and proven to the world that we are a superpower.








"I know a great deal about the Middle East because I've been raising Arabian horses for over 20 years, I've researched the culture for most of my life."--Patrick Swayze on Iraq


Roy.
Pepperoni








Since: 25.2.04
From: Keystone State

Since last post: 2415 days
Last activity: 884 days
#128 Posted on | Instant Rating: 10.00
    Originally posted by The Thrill
    I guess the rural Democrat is a thing of the past now?


I often wonder that. My grandfather was a registered Democrat, and voted across the board that way for 60+ years. He came over from England when he was 5, grew up a farmboy with a 9th grade education, was a postal carrier in WWII, and came home and made a family in a pretty rural area (which is no longer rural, thank you urban sprawl and yuppies).

I was only interested in politics at the end of his life, unfortunately, and I don't dare speak for him, but I do often wonder what he'd say about his beloved party. It's certainly not the same as it once was.
El Nastio
Andouille








Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 21 hours
ICQ:  
#129 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.33
A Fan, not eating meat on Fridays is a custom, not uppercase Tradition, so not essential to getting into Heaven. There’s a lot of “catholics” who don’t believe in “that stuff”, by the way. “Cafeteria catholics” (pick and chose), “cradle catholics” (born that way, never did anything else with the faith), “cultural catholics” (just cause veryone else around them is), and/or “part-time catholics” (easter, chirstmas, new years. Wonder if any of them know why we’re supposed to go to church on new years day).

“we will stuck with the same white religous farm boy from the south.”

I guess a “non-white, atheist homosexual city guy from the north” would be better right? You substitute “white” with any other word, “religious” with any other word, that’d be “wrong”, according to a few people. But bashing religious white guys is ok to do!


brick, the fact that Kerry brought out his faith makes him fair game, IMHO. No different than all the people who questioned his war record when he make a big deal about it (a lot of those people never fought in a war themselves). Myself, I’m not deciding anything if Kerry is devout or not. What I am doing is looking at Kerry from the positions that the Catholic Church teaches and what his PUBLIC stance is on those issues. Kerry was quoted saying he was in favor of abortion and same-sex marriage, that he believed those were right. Those are fairly public announcements of one’s faith. What he believes is in fact between him and God, but just like his war record, when he brought it up it becomes available for the public to see.

And you’re right about embryonic stem cell research having not been Church doctrine for centuries, but murder has. Those dead babies have to come from somewhere, after all.

fuelinjected, I wasn’t not saying EVERYONE must be Catholic (my girlfriend isn’t even Catholic, and I don’t expect her to ever become one. My best friends aren’t Catholic, likewise). What I was (and still am) saying is that those who call themselves Catholics, and profess to be Catholic, should start BELIEVING in Church teaching. And if not, maybe they should consider why they call themselves Catholic.

“Why must we all conform to your ideology?”

I don’t expect you to. I don’t want you to. And if you’re Catholic, you’re not conforming to MY ideology. You’re conforming to the doctrines of the Catholic Church, Her ideology.


(edited by El Nastio on 4.11.04 1101)


R.I.P. Montreal Expos, My Team of 20 years.


Sacred Heart.....have mercy on us.
A Fan
Liverwurst








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3614 days
Last activity: 3614 days
#130 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.15
Well, being Catholic for me is living by Jesus' teaching of helping out your fellow man and not codeming him. I have no time for Cardinals that slam Kerry for not being Catholic enough when they continue to hide and seek with priests who have molested children. So, this high and might Catholic Church and its dogma is more hypocritical than anything that came out of either campaign. If you want to live your life on the Church's rules, fine. I just don't think you or those peoople should go around telling people how to worship.



"All faith reguires is giving into the possibility of hope."
SirBubNorm
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: Under the table

Since last post: 3650 days
Last activity: 3599 days
#131 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.00
    Originally posted by A Fan
    Well, being Catholic for me is living by Jesus' teaching of helping out your fellow man and not codeming him. I have no time for Cardinals that slam Kerry for not being Catholic enough when they continue to hide and seek with priests who have molested children.


Are you trying to be ironic? Your first statement says not to condemn, followed by a second statement that (maybe I'm reading too much into it) condemns.

Look everyone is at some point a hypocrite, although some try harder at not being one than others. I agree you shouldn't condemn anyone, but if a public figure is representing himself as being part of the group, and he isn't following what the overall group believes, I do think it's fair (and not necessarily condemning) for the group to address what's in question.



It's a dog eat dog world and I'm wearing milkbone undershorts.
oldschoolhero
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: nWo Country

Since last post: 2044 days
Last activity: 1978 days
#132 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.42
But then the group's credibility as a whole comes into question when there are widespread allegations of their higher-ups turning a blind eye to said child molestation, so their concern is moot and maaaaybe Kerry's doing less damage to their dictats than their own selves. Just saying, is all.



Once upon a time in China, some believe, around the year one double-ought three, head priest of the White Lotus Clan, Pai Mei was walking down the road, contemplating whatever it is that a man of Pai Mei's infinite power contemplates - which is another way of saying "who knows" - when a Shaolin monk appeared, traveling in the opposite direction. As the monk and the priest crossed paths, Pai Mei, in a practically unfathomable display of generosity, gave the monk the slightest of nods. The nod was not returned. Now was it the intention of the Shaolin monk to insult Pai Mei or did he just fail to see the generous social gesture? The motives of the monk remain unknown. What is known, are the consequences. The next morning Pai Mei appeared at the Shaolin Temple and demanded of the Temple's head abbot that he offer Pai Mei his neck to repay the insult. The Abbot at first tried to console Pai Mei, only to find Pai Mei was inconsolable. So began the massacre of the Shaolin Temple and all 60 of the monks inside at the fists of the White Lotus. And so began the legend of Pai Mei's five point palm exploding heart technique.
A Fan
Liverwurst








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3614 days
Last activity: 3614 days
#133 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.15
See, this is my problem with religion, its not about rules. Its about faith. The main point of being a Catholic is following Jesus' teaching not the church's teachings would have conflicted one anothe for decades.

People shouldn't tell people who religious they should be. My statement is a bit ironic, but my point is that religious figures should not slam members of their organization while being very hyporitic themsleves. If they slam Kerry for his beliefs then excommunicate him. They didn't because what he believes in is a steady belief in most catholics. The fire and brimstone Catholics harp on it, but if you bring examples why it should be legal ie rape and pregeancy, they agree there should be exceptions. I find it unsettling when religous figures accuses people of not being faithful enough when they themselves were investigated on charges of covering up illegal activities involving minors. My problem is they should take Jesus' advice and not cast the first stone.



"All faith reguires is giving into the possibility of hope."
SirBubNorm
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: Under the table

Since last post: 3650 days
Last activity: 3599 days
#134 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.00
    Originally posted by oldschoolhero
    But then the group's credibility as a whole comes into question when there are widespread allegations of their higher-ups turning a blind eye to said child molestation, so their concern is moot and maaaaybe Kerry's doing less damage to their dictats than their own selves. Just saying, is all.


Everyone/every group is at some point a hypocrite. I don't know enough about what's been happening with the molestation stuff to say anything to add anything there. And if they haven't dealt with it, personally I think they should. However if they are asked or put into a position where they are asked about a public figure's accounting (because he's saying he's one of them), if they feel he isn't representing the group correctly, what do you expect them to say?

"Uh, we've got other problems, so I guess for the time being he can be one of us?".

Edit: A Fan posted while I was typing that...

>>People shouldn't tell people who religious they should be.

I agree. However as you point out above it's about faith and not rules (Actually there's a little caution here as *I* still believe you can't run around willy nilly intentionally breaking the rules and then come back and claim you're OK because of faith). The Catholic Church is about faith *through* rules.

So if the Catholic Church says that you're not following their rules and therefore say they don't feel you're Catholic, they have every right to do that. If you don't agree with them there really isn't much that you can do about the Catholic portion of it.

Of course I'm not Catholic so what do I know.

(edited by SirBubNorm on 4.11.04 1350)

It's a dog eat dog world and I'm wearing milkbone undershorts.
A Fan
Liverwurst








Since: 3.1.02

Since last post: 3614 days
Last activity: 3614 days
#135 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.13
No, the Catholic Church is about coming together to learn Jesus' teaching everything else is/should be window dressing. I think the major point being missed about this discussion is that not everyone in the organization agrees with the rules. I know priest who have openly said that the organization is wrong concering women's rights, stem cell research and women as priest. The organization does have the right to speak out against members, but at the same time the organization spokesperson is not speaking for every member of the organization. I don't remember the Catholic Church attacking Kerry prior to being the Democratic nomination, so it does seem shady.



"All faith reguires is giving into the possibility of hope."
Net Hack Slasher
Banger








Since: 6.1.02
From: Outer reaches of your mind

Since last post: 3647 days
Last activity: 2067 days
#136 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.07
*takes a deep breath* I waited a day so I can really collect my thoughts on this.

I was certainly not surprised George Bush won. Deep down I actually suspected it. I wrote here in the past on how I didn't like Bush using fear tactics for his advantage. Looking back at the results and the reasons of winning, I wish he did win because of it. Even though I disagree, at least I'd be able to understand & accepting more than what actually did happen.

"moral values" whatever that means was the deciding factor. THAT WAS over jobs, economy, oversea war, health care, hell even terror! That's all secondary on many Bush supporters minds to what Sara Smith does with her body or if two guys you will never meet can have a civil union. I'm sorry THAT IS SCARY. I understand being an issue but when you put it down as THE ISSUE, that's messed up when you are having religious beliefs override every other more important issues... You are voting for the President of the United States of America, not the POPE or archbishop or whoever the heck the leader of your religion is. I have Christian beliefs, I look at my religious leaders for my religious moral compass not my Prime Minister.

As I read through this thread and see analogies comparing homosexuality to child molestation and FIRST DEGREE MURDER it's just floors me... But I got one for you, I find it a little ironic how we are going to the middle east and our big worries are fundamentalist Muslims yet here at home we have the President of the United States voted into office because of fundamentalist religious groups. Think about that for a little bit.

There was this old guy on election night on CBS who was labeled "Elections Historian" can't remember his name, but really late in the night he said something that had to be said. There are two Americas, there is one that is progressive & understands society outlooks need to change. Then there's an America that refuses to move on, who sees the world changing around them and wants to stop the evolution of society... I have to agree with what he said. I am not saying that everyone who voted for Bush falls in the second category but I do think the people who voted for Bush strictly on moral values do.



smark/net attack wienerville advisory holds at ORANGE alert - High (JBL is STILL WWE champion and now smarks arch enemy HHH is the World Champion. Major red threat, but the undercard seems okay. The alert holds... for now)- 9/19
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1326 days
Last activity: 1123 days
#137 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by Net Hack Slasher
    There was this old guy on election night on CBS who was labeled "Elections Historian" can't remember his name, but really late in the night he said something that had to be said. There are two Americas, there is one that is progressive & understands society outlooks need to change. Then there's an America that refuses to move on, who sees the world changing around them and wants to stop the evolution of society...
I had two thoughts about that.

1. Unbiased media?

2. He's right. The Democrats and the liberals really need to move on and get with the times and stop fighting Vietnam....



SirBubNorm
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: Under the table

Since last post: 3650 days
Last activity: 3599 days
#138 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.08
    Originally posted by Net Hack Slasher
    "moral values" whatever that means was the deciding factor. THAT WAS over jobs, economy, oversea war, health care, hell even terror!


The word Morals to me is defined as the right thing to do. (I shortened the dictionary.com definition down.

Without morals what do you base your decisions on? How would decide whether you should give money to the needy, if your morals didn't say that you should? How would you decide whether or not to fight a war if it weren't for morals. How would you make a determination whether or not to kill someone if it wasn't for morals?

Maybe my morals or the president morals or Kerry's or whomever's morals aren't the same as yours (not referring to anyone in particular) BUT they do define how and why people make decisions. So morals being a big issue shouldn't be a surprise.

    Originally posted by A Fan
    No, the Catholic Church is about coming together to learn Jesus' teaching everything else is/should be window dressing.


*should* probably being more relevant in this quote than *is*. If the rest were truly window dressing, their wouldn't be any seperation between the Christian religions.

(edited by SirBubNorm on 4.11.04 1449)


It's a dog eat dog world and I'm wearing milkbone undershorts.
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1373 days
Last activity: 139 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#139 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.94
Wasn't that whole "Moral Values" thing from the same exit poll that predicted a Kerry landslide? As such, I wouldn't put too much stock in it. According to some sources, "Iraq" wasn't even a choice on the ballot. And don't some who oppose the war in Iraq refer to it as an "Immoral and Illegal Occupation?" Who is to say that they didn't make up a lot of those who chose morality as their #1 concern on the poll?

I reject the assertion that if you oppose gay marriage, then you are unwilling to "move forward." Not every plank in the Democrat platform is an advancement. Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them backwards. And you sure as heck aren't going to convince people to change their minds and agree with your ideas if you accuse them of being ignorant Neanderthals. If this election was decided on a public who doesn't support gay marriage like you say, screaming that they are unenlightened is only going to harden them against your point of view. You want gay marriage to be recognized by the government? CONVINCE people that your ideas are better. "Because it is the right thing to do" is clearly not enough.

That is what I am talking about here - you people aren't interested in the exchange of ideas, or debate, or compromise. If I believe something should be done a different way, not only am I wrong, but I am either ignorant, racist, bigoted, hateful, backwards, or some combination of those five. That makes me less willing to take your arguments seriously, and more likely that I am just going to eventually ignore anything you have to say.

In any case, I wouldn't look too deep into what the polls are saying in regards to why people voted the way they did. The fact is that the Democrats put up a guy that no one had a real reason to vote for. His base was solid anti-Bush, which is why he did as well as he did, but when it came to those who DIDN'T hate the president, who didn't buy the fear argument that he was going to take away Social Security or start a draft or some such nonsense- they weren't given a real alternative with Kerry. In every important issue, he may have berated the President, but his "plan" was basically the same.

Hate and fear will only get you so far in an election, and clearly in this case, it wasn't far enough for Kerry.



Still on the Shelf.com

Updated Weekly
StaggerLee
Scrapple








Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 21 hours
#140 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.56
wordlife, I can respect your views on the military not being an option. Personally, I think everybody should serve either a three year military hitch OR three years of service for the government, right out of high school (and sooner, if you drop out) but, thats just me. I believe it would foster a greater appreciation for our government, and ease the burden of trying to get things done, on a social scale.

As for your brother and his partner not being able to get married, George Bush isnt doing that. The local states are voting NO on it. Every single place it is brought up for public vote, including in the congress, it has been turned down. Now, I respect ANYBODY who can forge a loving relationship, and encourage everybody to be in one (Generalls speaking, it would cut down on single moms, STDs, etc.). I still have not heard a single argument as to why a marriage is NEEDED to be given any rights to same sex couples as to different sex couples. In fact, where I work, same sex couples can have health insurace for thier partners, but I cannot. Seems wrong to me that its okay for one, but not for another. The "you have an option to get married" argument to me isnt valid, since if I dont feel the need to, the option is pretty useless.

As far as using the military for a personal vendetta, it wasnt like the Iraqis tried to kill Jeb Bush, they tried to assasinate the President of the United States of America. In fact, there is public laws that were passed while Clinton was in office that stated it was to be the position of the US Government to remove Saddam from Power, for a number of reasons. I believe it should be the policy of the Government to remove any other government from power that would organize an attempt to assasinate any public official from the United States. Because it happens to be his father shouldnt change that, or we shouldnt say "Well, lets let this slide, since it may look personal in nature" and, why shouldnt Bush take it personal? The government of Iraq tried to assasinate his father.

And, Guru, if you arent going to vote for the person who is going to represent you, and do the most for you personally, but for "the future of the nation" isnt that like saying "even if it doesnt make sense and doesnt do you any good, support it"?.

I voted for the candidate that has given me more of my own money back, and who has provided me with a sense of comfort. Is that enough of a reason? If I had voted for the same person, but for the reason that he supports my particular views on religion, is that vote now a WRONG vote, because it is based on religion, and not personal financial security and safety?

The reason you vote for somebody shouldnt matter, as long as in your heart, you support that candidate. If I am agnostic, and believe that the economy is the main reason to vote for a candidate, and I look at both philosophies of the cadidates and pick the one that most closely resembles my own, I am voting on philosophy. Why is somebody who is deeply religious and votes on THAT philosphy now somehow less qualified, or 'correct' in thier choice of candidate?

Dont get me wrong, I think that people who vote for people soley because they are pro life are morons, but that is only because I feel that there are more important issues in America than the abortion issue.

But, being tolerant and allowing people thier own religious views and allowing people a voice in government shouldnt mean that a person who votes soley on religious or morality, should be discounted. Should it?
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Thread rated: 4.89
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Thread ahead: Attorney General Ashcroft resigns
Next thread: Less than shocking new study on the root causes of terrorism....
Previous thread: Conservative Groups Put Research on Watch List
(949 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Don't blame the celebrity for speaking his or her views (even when they're not logical), blame the morons who feel their every thought is newsworthy and publish them left and right.
- Hairy Caray, Thank you Paul McCartney (2003)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Election 2004 results thread (Page 7)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.278 seconds.